get_afk_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by explaining the return values (afkMode and clientConnected status) and their implications for routing decisions. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value by explaining usage scenarios and routing logic. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some conditional statements, though all content is relevant and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (simple status check with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral implications. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) or error cases, which could enhance completeness for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the current AFK mode status.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('AFK mode status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_user_decision' or 'notify_session_progress' which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before every interaction to decide whether to route through AFK MCP tools or native chat.' It also details specific conditions (e.g., 'If afkMode is true and clientConnected is true...') and mentions alternatives like 'native chat' and sibling tools, offering clear context for decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.